And, to the above article, Michael Moore is a propagandist. (And I say this with a heavy heart because I loathe to hate on a Spartan, but its the truth.)
See, I'll go with that. Hell, George Will is sometimes correct. Nobody is busy flagellating themselves over someone who is "sometimes correct" however. They're all up on the wailing wall for Christopher Hitchens, Literary Lion. Bombast isn't necessarily falsehood, either. It's just the art of writing loudly. Hitchens was a one-trick pony who was so good at that one trick that people forgive the substantial trespasses he made against journalism and literature. Is Michael Moore a propagandist? I doubt even Michael Moore would contest that. Thing is, though, Hitchens called him a liar over and over and over again. As if the facts in FAHRENHEIT 911 hadn't been substantiated again and again and again. Hitchens wasn't the slightest bit interested in the truth, he was wholly given over to making you pissed off at the same things that pissed him off. And as a capricious and focus-poor gasbag, "things that pissed him off" changed on a daily basis with no attempt to reconcile his prior vitriol. History will forget Christopher Hitchens for the exact reasons it remembers William F. Buckley. And I think it's important to point out that my politics are much more closely aligned with Hitchens... but my respect is wholly with Buckley. A decent columnist doesn't need to lie to prove a point.
Aside: I've always enjoyed this Buckley/Hitchens conversation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0LR2mxqMNM